Scouring the ‘net for news - so you don’t have to…

Wrapping up the previous week’s news coverage, the Greeley Gazette published a thoughtful and informative article (”Organization Calls for Non-Retention of Three Colorado Justices“, Friday 10 September 2010) discussing how the Colorado Supreme Court’s Mullarkey Majority (incumbent justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, and Nancy Rice - the “Three Colorado Justices” seeking another 10-year term on the November ballot - plus outgoing Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey, who is resigning rather than be held accountable by Colorado voters)

circumvented the Colorado Constitution on several occasions and should not be retained.

The article describes the key cases in which the Colorado Supreme Court ruled contrary to the clear letter of the Colorado Constitution and violated the rights of Colorado Citizens over the last decade (which is the current term of the incumbent justices appearing on the November ballot).

The Colorado Statesman also published an article Friday (”Ritter picks Marquez for state Supreme Court“) that highlighted concerns about how Marquez’ background might influence her rulings as a supreme court justice:

Many of the positions taken by Marquez on constitutional issues raise concerns about how she might rule from the Colorado Supreme Court bench, Arnold said.

“Marquez advocated in favor of the 2003 judicial takeover of legislative redistricting authority in the Salazar v. Davidson redistricting case, argued that “fees” are not taxes in the Barber v. Ritter case (which led to the 2009 Colorado Car Tax - er, vehicle registration “fee” - increases), and has sought to restrict the 1st Amendment rights of citizens seeking to speak out on ballot issues in recent and ongoing cases. She is also the lead attorney in yet another attempt to impose an unconstitutional tax increase on Colorado citizens,” Arnold said.

A Denver Post commentary published in the days immediately following Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey’s announcement of her intent to resign (”Mullarkey’s Troubling Legacy“, Denver Post opinion 5 June 2010) made similar points, but unfortunately neglected to mention that Mullarkey didn’t perpetrate these constitutional crimes on her own, but was aided and abetted in these misdeeds by three accomplices who are appearing on the ballot this November).

Instead, the Denver Post editorial board chose to commemorate 9/11 by calling a military veteran a “skunk” for daring to express concerns (based on a career background of advocacy and a lack of judicial experience) about Governor Ritter’s pick for Mullarkey’s replacement while failing to mention her (Marquez) role in these cases.

Clear The Bench Colorado started off the week last Sunday evening (9/12) with an in-studio appearance on Backbone Radio to discuss the Colorado Supreme Court, Colorado’s “merit selection & retention” system of nominating and evaluating judges, and Governor Ritter’s recently announced pick to replace outgoing Chief Justice Mullarkey, who is resigning rather than be held accountable by Colorado voters.  Producer Josh Sharf also had fun with bumper clips parodying the previous day’s (9/11) Denver Post editorial calling Clear The Bench Colorado Director (and decorated military veteran) Matt Arnold a “skunk” (in what was either a childish cheap shot or “epic fail” attempt at humor):

“Yet there always has to be a skunk at the garden party, and this time the role of Pepe Le Pew was played by Matt Arnold of Clear the Bench Colorado, a group that wants voters to oust all of the justices who are up for retention this year.”

Backbone Radio host Ross Kaminsky had also blogged on the subject of Governor Ritter’s pick politicizing the judicial system on Saturday as well.

A week full of public speaking appearances started off strong when Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold kicked off the week as the lead-off speaker at the “We ARE The People” rally at the Denver Capitol on Monday.  Matt received some of the most thunderous applause of the day (a late-arriving attendee said that it was loud and clear for several blocks) as he reminded the crowd about the serial transgressions of the Colorado Supreme Court’s “Mullarkey Majority” against the Colorado Constitution (leading to the “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” property tax increase, the “Dirty Dozen” tax increases and of course the Colorado Car Tax (er, “vehicle registration fee”) increase) and our opportunity to remove the remaining three ‘unjust justices’ at the ballot box in November.  Curiously, despite the fact that the rally was just up the street from the Denver Post building (and well within auditory range), the Post published nary a word about the rally and the challenge to the Colorado Supreme Court incumbents (apparently $1.6 Million a year is a lot of hush money).  The Denver Daily News ran the story on their front page (along with a nice pic) the next day (”Liberty Groups Seek Unity“):

The speech was covered by State Bill Colorado (”Broomfield 9/12 Rally Taking Place At Colo. Capitol“):

Prominent at the rally are members of Clear The Bench Colorado, a political group hoping to win voter non-retention of three Supreme Court justices in the November election.

but not a peep from the Post (Colorado’s “newspaper of record”).

The big news (and time sink) for Clear The Bench Colorado came midweek with the “clash in the courtroom” on Wednesday: CEW Round Two.  ”Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) had their day in court (again) attacking the right of Clear The Bench Colorado to oppose the incumbent Colorado Supreme Court ‘unjust justices’ appearing on the November ballot.  Although the judge did not immediately grant our motion to dismiss the attack, CEW’s case later came completely unraveled when the State Elections Director (from the office of the Colorado Secretary of State) stated unequivocally that it was the considered opinion of the Secretary of State’s office - following several internal policy meetings and much discussion - that Clear The Bench Colorado is properly categorized as an “Issue Committee” (which CEW is challenging).  Further, he stated that it was an almost unanimous opinion shared up to and including the highest levels.  He further stated that although the office does not provide legal advice, it “provides guidance all the time” - and that people are reasonably expected to rely on the guidance issued (in whatever form - verbal, written, publicized, or otherwise) by the Secretary of State’s office.

One could have heard a pin drop in the courtroom after those statements - CEW was flat on the mat.

Law Week Colorado covered the early part of the hearing (before the Secretary of State office’s bombshell), providing an overview and background on the case (”Clear The Bench Colorado Hearing Going On Today“), which was also picked up by the Huffington Post (the HuffPo has been tracking Clear The Bench Colorado with a unique “tag” for about a year now).  ”Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” - it’s what they do) attempted (desperately) to put their own spin on the hearing later (”Ethics Watch’s Fight Against Big Money In Judicial Elections Goes To Court“) - which is completely laughable, given the “big money” funding CEW, the “big money” funding the “Grueskin group” opposing Clear The Bench Colorado, the “big money” behind the “education” campaign by a coalition of legal-establishment special-interest groups propping up incumbent judges and justices, the “big money” (YOUR taxpayer dollars at work, by the way) funding the whitewash “evaluations” perpetrated by the “judicial performance evaluation commissions” (recommending a “retain” vote EVERY time - 100% - for supreme court justices in the decades-long history of the commissions), etc. etc.  The “Big Money” is already in judicial politics - just all on the side of the incumbents. (Stay tuned for more on that topic…)

Later that evening, at a Liberty On The Rocks gathering featuring Denver Post Editorial Board member Chuck Plunkett, friends of Clear The Bench Colorado (I was unable to attend in person) presented him with an autographed picture of Pepe Le Pew (suitable for framing).  Chuck took it in good humor:

Powered By: VideoBuzz

Oh, so calling a veteran a “skunk” on 9/11 was a formatting issue…

Still awaiting the Denver Post Editorial Board invitation to discuss the Colorado Supreme Court retention elections (the MOST important issue on this year’s ballot) that they’ve offered to every other statewide race or ballot question…

Meanwhile, across the country, the issue of judicial retention elections is gaining serious attention.  The National Law Journal ran two pieces in the space of a week (first, a September 6th guest commentary, “Is justice for sale?” and a September 13th report “Battlegrounds” - the latter unfortunately restricted to subscribers only), both mentioning Clear The Bench Colorado.  From the former article:

Bread-and-butter economic issues are also fueling attacks on judges. A group called Clear the Bench Colorado is attacking four justices it accuses of using underhanded tactics to ratify higher taxes.

The latter article also characterized Clear The Bench Colorado as an “anti-tax group” despite an extensive interview and follow-up message describing the entire range of constitutional transgressions perpetrated by the court:

In Colorado, an anti-tax group has started a campaign called “Clear the Bench” in an effort to defeat incumbent justices.

Characterizing critiques of judicial performance as “attacks on judges” and narrowing the basis for the critiques as “anti-tax” fits the narrative perpetrated by the legal establishment, but not the facts.  Citizens are becoming increasingly fed up with politicized courts refusing to uphold their constitutional rights and the rule of law - and are demanding accountability across the country.

Seeing their dominance of the courts threatened, the “progressive” legal establishment is conducting a media “blitz” to convince voters that they should not exercise their right to hold judges (and, especially, state supreme court justices) accountable by the only means available: the ballot box.  The New York Times recently editorialized (”Fair Courts At Risk“, NYT 9/9/2010) against electoral accountability for judges; the Huffington Post chimed in a few days later (13 Sep 2010) with commentary advancing a similar agenda (”Elected Justice“).  Both articles (and similar pieces) parroted talking points released by the George-Soros funded “Justice At Stake Campaign” (another big-money group which is attempting to erode public accountability for the judicial branch nationwide).

The legal establishment and the political ruling class don’t want you to get informed; they prefer to keep you in the dark, or failing that, convince you NOT to exercise your right to vote “NO” this November on the four (er, three remaining) ‘unjust justices’ of the Colorado Supreme Court’s “Mullarkey Majority”- (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and soon-to-be-minus Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your home or business against seizure via eminent domain abuse, your right to be fairly represented in the legislature and Congress, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering under rule by activist, agenda-driven “justices.”  Continue to support Clear The Bench Colorado with your comments (Sound Off!) and contributions - and vote “NO” on giving these unjust justices another 10-year term!

Political enemies of Attorney General John Suthers are STILL attempting to use his principled (albeit uncharacteristically bold) statement that he would vote “NO” on retaining 3 of the 4 Colorado Supreme Court justices on the ballot (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, & Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) as a political club with which to rhetorically beat him - continuing to propagate knowingly false statements accusing him of partisan bias in his pronouncement.

State Senator Morgan Carroll - appearing at a nonpartisan gathering of politically-interested people at Liberty On The Rocks (Red Rocks) - stuck by her earlier accusation against Attorney General John Suthers of “partisan bias” and her call for his impeachment when challenged to defend her statement.

While Senator Carroll is certainly entitled to her own opinion, she does NOT get to pick her own facts - her attack on the Attorney General intentionally misrepresented his statement in order to score political points.  In other words - as previously noted in this space -  she lied.

Senator Morgan Carroll - a Democrat, and therefore presumably a political enemy of Republican Attorney General Suthers - asserted in a blog post entitled “The Role of the Attorney General” that the AG stated

he would not vote for retention for any of the Colorado Supreme Court Justices who were originally appointed by a Democrat.

The proper measure for retention of a judge is their judicial performance - not political party.  The Judicial Performance Commission makes these reports available on non-partisan criteria pertaining the experience of lawyers, parties and public with the Judges.

For the states highest law enforcement officer to call for a partisan purge and partisan stacking of the bench raises serious questions.

We need to protect the importance of this office to ensure that it does not get subverted to a partisan agenda on either side…

Carroll’s polemic intentionally misrepresents both the AG’s statement and the rationale for his position, in a blatant attempt at partisan spin.  Suthers did NOT state that he “would not vote for retention for any of the Colorado Supreme Court Justices who were originally appointed by a Democrat.”  In fact, he stated that he would vote “NO” on 3 of the 4, and “yes” on the other (ALL 4 are Democrat appointments) on the basis of his perception of the constitutionality of their rulings, NOT their partisan affiliation.  Accusations of a “partisan purge and partisan stacking of the bench” are knowingly false statements - perhaps the AG has grounds for a libel suit against Sen. Carroll?

We can assert with confidence that Carroll’s statement was knowingly false not only because she cited as the source for her attack the Post article  (AG Suthers may not back 3 on state Supreme Court) which, although itself containing some spin, accurately reported the AG’s statement.

We can also assert with confidence that Carroll knows the facts because we told her so - commenting on her post (which comment she refused to publish - OK, her site, her rules - CTBC also moderates comments, but allows both positive and negative comments to be published) and now in person.

Our response to Senator Carroll’s possibly libelous, certainly disingenuous statement:

Senator Carroll: Clear The Bench Colorado agrees with your statement that “The proper measure for retention of a judge is their judicial performance - not political party.”  Unfortunately, the Judicial Performance Commission reviews - despite the generally good intentions of the participants in the process - have NOT provided an effective, substantive evaluation of the performance of our courts, particularly at the highest levels.

The Denver Post article has done readers a disservice by casting the retention elections in partisan terms. This is absolutely NOT a partisan issue - we can (and apparently do) agree on that.  Rather,it is a matter of the justices upholding the Constitution and the rule of law (important to ALL parties).

Also, it is inaccurate to assert that the Attorney General stated that “he would not vote for retention for any of the Colorado Supreme Court Justices who were originally appointed by a Democrat.”  In fact, he stated that he would vote “NO” on 3 out of the 4 justices appointed by Governor Romer (and would vote yes on Justice Nancy Rice). The Denver Post article said as much.

We need to protect the importance of our highest court to ensure that is does not get subverted to a partisan agenda on either side. Unfortunately, at least 3 out of the 4 justices (CTBC would argue that it’s 4 for 4) have consistently displayed in their rulings that they endorse such a role for the judiciary.  This behavior should not be tolerated from our justices - vote “NO” on their retention in November 2010. Clear The Bench, Colorado!

Clear The Bench Colorado exists not to attack our institutions, but to defend them - including the “Missouri Plan” that mixes judicial appointments with retention elections, in a well-intentioned attempt to minimize politicization of the judiciary.  Unfortunately, the politicization of the Colorado judiciary has long since been perpetrated by the unconstitutional rulings and pursuit of personal agendas by the four (now, three) ’unjust justices’ of the Mullarkey Majority (Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, and Nancy Rice - Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey quit rather than be held accountable) who are facing the voters in this November’s retention elections.

Exercise YOUR right to vote “NO” on the 4 ‘unjust justices’ of the Mullarkey Majority (Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) who need YOUR approval to continue taking away your constitutional rights: your right to vote on tax increases, your right to defend your homes and business from being seized through eminent domain abuse, and your right to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, instead of suffering rule by an oligarchy of activist, agenda-driven “justices.”  Please help support Clear The Bench Colorado with your own comments (Sound Off!), your contributions, and your “NO” vote on retaining these unjust justices in November 2010!

Clear The Bench Colorado continues to spread the word (NOT spreading the wealth) around the state, with speaking engagements, press interviews, radio appearances, and a television debut.  Another extremely busy week, with Director Matt Arnold appearing at multiple events around the Denver metro area and featuring a CBTC road trip to the Western Slope:

Monday, August 3rd: speaking at Liberty On The Rocks (Red Rocks), 5-7PM, Old Chicago, 145 Union Blvd., Lakewood, on the rooftop patio.

Tuesday, August 4th: speaking at the ACRW luncheon, 11:30-1 at the City Buffet (Northglenn), 107th & Melody

Appearing on the Independent Thinking television program with host Jon Caldara and fellow guest John Andrews for a discussion on ”Voter Approval of Supreme Court Justices” at 5PM on KBDI Channel 12 for Clear The Bench Colorado’s broadcast television debut (re-broadcast from Friday).

Thursday, August 6th: speaking at the Western Slope Conservative Alliance event, 6:30-8:30PM  at City Hall in Grand Junction

Saturday, August 8th: speaking at the DRWC “Breakfast in the Park” event at Eisenhower Park (just east of Colorado Blvd on Dartmouth Ave, Denver), 9-11AM

and wrapping up the week by attending (not a scheduled speaker) the Tom Tancredo roast, 6-10PM at the Red Lion Inn at Parker/I-225 (RSVP/BUY TICKETS: 303-779-1115)

Meet up with Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold at one of these events this week (if you can catch him standing still) and learn more about the grassroots movement to restore accountability to our judiciary in Colorado.  Let’s Ditch the Mullarkey Majority (Justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, Nancy Rice, and Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey) by voting “NO” to retain these unjust justices in 2010! Let’s Clear The Bench, Colorado!